#25 TR0239 this is a potential risk when not consider patient category

[Peter Kranich]

Comment

The physiological range highly depends on the patient category. A neonatal has very different physiological range compared with an adult.
How can a "one-fits-all" physiological range look like?

Rationale / Proposed change

Please clarify.

[Björn Andersen]

Not primarily an MPKP issue, discussion continued in [ieee11073-10207:#98].

Proposal: Consider removing TR0240. (Or can we re-word this in a way that would keep it compatible with future changes of BICEPS? E.g. "state element of type pm:Range"?)

The PhysiologicalRange is currently being used as a "presentation hint", see also: [ieee11073-10207:#193]

[Björn Andersen]

In addition: We should require 239 (and 240) of settings and pre-settings as well, i.e. remove the condition.

[Björn Andersen]

I have been trying to come up with a wording that supports both the current state of BICEPS and what we hope to introduce in a possible revision. R0239 works reasonably well, but I am still not convinced of R0240. It feels like we are trying to solve a BICEPS defect in MPKP and it does not seem to work particularly well. So despite proposing the following wording, I am still in favour of removing R0240 entirely and solving the whole issue in BICEPS.

MPKP239: For each of its numeric and sample array METRICs, an SDC METRIC PROVIDER SHALL provide at least one pm:TechnicalRange element including an @Upper and @Lower limit.

MPKP240: For each of its numeric and sample array METRICs, if the currently active range differs from the pm:TechnicalRange, an SDC METRIC PROVIDER SHALL provide at least one state element of type pm:Range including @Upper and @Lower limit.

[Björn Andersen]

Update R0239 and remove R0240.

[Björn Andersen]

MPKP updated accordingly. To be permanently fixed in BICEPS revision, see ticket [ieee11073-10207:#98].